Say Goodbye to the Purchasing Power of the Dollar

darbikrash-


…And jobs means businesses, and business need ready access to unlimited capital for startups and expansions alike.

Unlimited capital?  For any idea?  Even the really stupid ones?  I've done startups - a number of them.  There are a lot of really stupid ideas out there.  How do we differentiate between the good ideas and the bad ones, if "businesses had ready access to unlimited capital"?  What criteria should we use to weed out those ideas that have an extremely low likelihood of panning out?  Currently, loans can't be created unless they have a reasonable hope of being paid back.  Are you suggesting we don't use this criteria anymore?   That capital for expansion actually comes from somewhere; it comes, by devaluing everyone else's savings!  In our system, taking out a loan is in a real sense diluting the value of every other dollar in the planet, because new money is created when the loan is issued.  To my mind, the loan should be providing something of real value to society in return for the devaluation - and that does not include providing free fuel for the next stupid startup concept.  Those VC on Sand Hill Road have a purpose in our economy.  They prevent a vast number of stupid ideas from wasting our money!   I am more in the camp of the Hayek video, that points the finger on the 30 years of lax credit expansion that happened previously.  By controlling interest rates, the Fed makes credit easier, or harder to get.  In the early to middle stages, the Fed facilitates private "money printing" by dropping rates.  But by making rates too low for too long, at some point, debt saturation is reached, lax credit standards have allowed every stupid idea to be funded, we get Webvan at $60 a share, janitors taking out loans for $600,000 houses at subprime rates, and there's a blow-off top when the last idiot takes out the last loan and there is nobody left to carry on the ponzi.   Those blow-off tops cause a great deal of damage to the vast bulk of innocent participants who are just trying to do the right thing, and the blow-off tops don't create anything of lasting value for the economy.  Vast amounts of irreplaceable natural resources are wasted on dumb ideas during those phases, and the contraction phase that comes after hurts a large number of people.   I think its far better to limit the availablilty of money in the first case - to use an ounce of prevention at the start - rather than apply a metric ton of cure at the point where we are now.   I stand by everything I said about the mechanism - and going further I'll add that businesses can't or won't borrow in aggregate because of debt saturation.  Available credit must be based on our reasonable ability to pay it back.  And we've maxed that out.   I'm not a huge fan of fractional reserve lending.  It seems fraudulent at its core to me.  As for what should replace it - I don't know.  I just know I don't want to put MY savings in a bank that is unstable by design.  And I'd prefer not to have my savings slowly evaporate just so some stupid business owner with a lame idea (in aggregate) creates the next webvan and we get another bubble that pops and destroys a bunch of people's savings.   Is gold the answer?  I don't know that either.  I'll let smarter people than me figure that one out.  I content myself with analyzing what is going on today.  

I continue to believe that we will see deflation in uncessary items, and inflation in necessities.
Overbuilt housing, luxury items? I am of the opinion that luxuries will experience defaltion and cease to be made once the demand dries up.

Food, energy, clean water, textiles? I think things like this will experience inflation. There will be transitional inflation in things that the old paradigm uses to get necessities, like pertoleum-powered food-producing tools; but as oil gets more expensive they will become less and less in demand until they no longer exist.

Not everything fits into this neat little system (yet), but we will drift that way to to the sheer number of people on the planet, and finite resources. If I had extra resources I would put them into PMs but only AFTER basic ongoing needs could be assured for myself and those I love. For now, I'm investing in food, shelter, clothing, energy and skills.

And a word to all you folks who think that this site has been "hijacked" by goldbugs. Get over it. I say this as someone who has no gold at all, mind you, but would no object if I was in a potition to hold some physical coins or bullion. Be grateful that those who have some resources are willing to try and save some of those resources for after a currency crash. If they are on this site, they probably "get it" and will try to help rebuild things after a crash. You want people who "get it" to have resources.

Davefairtex, I was not clear in the description of my meaning of unlimited access to capital. My point is that access to capital cannot be constrained by artificial ceilings, such as linking it to gold or other externalities. The words “unlimited access” apply to unconstrained supply. This does not in any way supersede basic lending and repayment criteria for loans- these of course still apply. 
Bad business plans are not funded because lenders are fearful of non payment, nothing new here. Occasionally, bad business plans are funded, and indeed, these failures result in the destruction of capital and dilution of savings for the rest of us. If however, these loans are for productive use of capital, and the use of this new capital is used to hire employees whose labor adds value to commodities, then these transactions are said to be expansionary and no savings are diluted.
 
I am not making the point here that capital controls and lending criteria are in any way to be relaxed.
 

 
Yes, and to take this further, Minsky’s Instability Theory suggest that even in absence of manufactured incentives by the Fed or anyone else, that in and of itself, free market forces will gravitate toward ever risky investments chasing ever higher returns until the system blows up and damages everyone-including non market participants. So with respect to Fed manipulation, damned if you do, damned if you don’t- the take away is that some type of managed economy is absolutely necessary, and to be sure managing it badly is just as deleterious as not managing it at all- contrary to free market evangelism which says the opposite.
 

Depends how you limit it. If (as proposed in this thread by others) that you attempt to limit it with unrelated externalities such as gold or Bitcoin, than I disagree as these schemes have no coupling to the realities of captial's expansion needs. They are in fact decoupled from the capitalist means of production, and because of this there is the very real possibity (and history proves this with gold) of this external relationship providing inadeqaute currency supply. Again, this is my central point, regarding the need for (agressive) a priori regulatory oversight, we would likely completely agree. However, this is not free market doctrine, and runs sustantively counter to these notions. In fact, Steve Keen calls the embodiement of these principles "regulatory socialism", his somewhat tongue in cheek term for allowing the private sector ownership of the means of production, but regulatory oversight is tightly state controlled, specifically to address the isues that you raise.

Agreed, but is this symptom or cause? The very essence of capitalism is the necessity to reinvest profits to keep the machine going, debt saturation (as you suggest) in concert with billions of dollars in undeployed capital on the sidelines points to more than just a problem with too many loans or inability to repay said loans, the undeployed surplus capital says something else, even if you don’t have to borrow it there is nothing (productive) to do with it. I think this is pretty important……
 
 
 

Darbikrash,
are you saying that, in essence, the efficient-market hypothesis (EMH) is a western form of cultural lobotomy when accounting for purchasing power parity (PPP) and price elasticity of demand (PED) i.e. - the real world income earned by an individual affects his or her demand for goods and response to changes in price?
Thankyou in advance
 

I tried to post this but I'm hitting a limit. Lol I think the thread is going to move to a page 3 after this so I will post it in two parts:
If I'm off base Darbikrash please correct me, I was trying to reply to Jim and Dave…Darbikrash is not making conclusions as to what is wrong, but rather is merely stating that in capitalism's superstructure is the narrative (which converts into reality whether you like it or not) of unlimited growth. This is not born out of some hypothetical, but out of the history of capitalism. Keynes, Hansen, and Hayek all discussed this very topic during and after the depression, so this is nothing new. The only thing I see missing in his post is reference to Berle and Means (The Modern Corporation and Private Property)… and the continuing concentration of wealth in a small corporate capitalist elite. I happen to agree with him that the narrative and therefore the reality of capitalism is founded on expanding growth.

Darbikrash's statement of stability being subserviant to supply is not a judgement but an observation of what has been the inevitable course of capitalism - moving to neocapitalism in the past 100+ years. Is it not happening now? Stability of currency is being thrown under the bus of monetary printing. And with that inherent superstructure imbedded into the structure of how people labor and see their relations within the labor market, I would have to agree with him that a constricted alternative money supply will not match the superstructure as it exists now.

He's not arguing against a change to something different, he is pointing out that trying to impose these alternate currencies on labor as it exists now will cause things to fail anyway, because the capitalist models have ever-expanding growth built into them. Can someone here point to an economic model where population is increasing and the market is constrained?

Hayek was against an ever-expanding government because he thought it would take on a life of its own and eventually turn into fascism. Keynes agreed with him but also acknowledged that capitalism would not work without a government to keep it functioning. In my opinion both were correct, but the problem is that there is a paradox that exists within those competing ideas. How do you keep a necessary government from expanding in a market that continues to expand? Hansen thought ever-expanding population growth would solve the problem (with Malthus rolling over in his grave:-).Now we are hitting real limits and we are trying to say we need to return to a currency that has limits, but we'll turn a blind eye to the fact that population continues to rise, not to mention those people in developing countries still want their piece of the pie. This issue is way beyond the U.S. borders and it is not just about debt and currencies, it's how we view the world, our relationships, our work, who owns what, who plans what, and the list goes on.
By becoming resillient you are making steps to not participate in this commoditized market (or at least limit yourself) so that makes a difference. It's a small step, but billions (people) of small steps make one big one.
Sorry about the two posts. I'm not sure why the site wouldn't accept it as one post.

Davefairtex, I was not clear in the description of my meaning of unlimited access to capital. My point is that access to capital cannot be constrained by artificial ceilings, such as linking it to gold or other externalities. The words “unlimited access” apply to unconstrained supply.
Aha.  Well that's different.  Never mind!  :-) I'm definitely in agreement with the need for strong regulation.  But regulation needs to be simple, not complicated.  And organizations need to become simple, and small, so they are easy to regulate.  And so they don't buy off the regulators, or the politicians.  Its much harder for many small banks to buy Washington than for three large ones to do so. That implies glass-stegall, limiting banking to no more than 5% of national deposits, and splitting gambling from the banking utility. All of the "pure capitalists" aren't so good with understanding the vastly increased likelihood of corruption and fraud with concentration of wealth and power.  So we have to keep the power diluted, spread among many organizations, so true competition can survive. Now then, about the money system - gold backed vs non gold-backed, I really don't have any clear thing to say.  On one hand, with peak everything, the ability to grow the money supply isn't quite as critical as it once might have been.  On the other, its unlikely that gold will provide more than a bump in the road vs the power of the TBTF banks today. And as David Stockman said, should the Fed even be in the business of setting rates - of causing the very boom and bust cycles through doing a really good job of central planning? And the supply of gold does grow - about 2% per year, as gold is mined. So at the end of the day, I'm ambivalent about that part. As for your contention that all this cash lying around signifies something, I have to agree with you.  I think it does too.  My guess: corporations were terrified by what happened in 2008, and they want to operate with a lot more of a cushion "just in case" it happens again.  It might be a more complex picture than that, but I think that's the big piece of it. All those CFOs are probably privately appalled Bernanke is printing 80 billion a month, and that makes them very cautious about having their own safety net in place.  Paradoxically, if the Fed stopped printing, that in and of itself might bring back a certain amount of confidence.  "I think the economy is doing so well, we can stop our printing efforts!" All clear, everyone back into the water! Its a thought anyway.  

Dave and Darbi,
As long as we're baking pies in the sky, could you give me an example of a regulating agency that is working well? This is a regulator that keeps the regulated in check, without too much cost to any party, and always produces satisfactory results. As I stated in Post #51:

As an example of regulation that was an utter failure, I submit the financial debacle that resulted in the 2008 meltdown and subsequent bail-out of the "too big to fail" corporations. If I remember correctly, all of these financial corporations were regulated by at least one regulator. :wink: All of these corporations were able to work enough within the regulatory bounds to avoid detection before it was simply too late. Were it not for the bail-outs, the whole system would have imploded. (Is that too much dramatic hyperbole?)

Meanwhile, we little people have a false sense of security because we think the regulators are keeping us safe. We boldly park our money in the bank that offers the highest FDIC insured interest rate. FDIC has a stake to make sure the banks are operating within certain bounds, right?

The FDIC has less than 1% of the insured deposits in reserve. How far out the Bell Curve do we need to go before a "lilly white swan" event wipes out the entire reserve of the FDIC? It doesn't matter, though. Whatever the FDIC needs to make the populace whole will be delivered by hook or by crook.

Regulations can never bar the barn door before the horses escape. Any a priori regulation attempts will be met by screams from those being regulated. They will rightly accuse the regulator of trying to bankrupt them for no apparent reason. That gives the corporate creative genii an unfair advantage. Regulation can only hope to keep even.

Why not work for a system that has a chance of succeeding?

  • History has made it abundantly clear that governments are bound to exist.
  • Governments need to take part of the productive pie from the producers in order to fund its activity.
  • Corporations will do whatever they deem to be in the best interest of their stockholders.
  • Stockholders want their corporations to produce maximum profits at minimum costs.
Why not tax the externalities generated by corporations? As an example, tax rather than regulate pollution and you've got corporations limiting their pollution (on their own) because it is in the stockholder's best interest to do so. If too much pollution is being generated, government set the cost too low. If corporations are closing shop and leaving, government set the cost too high. Either way, government needs to adjust the pollution unit cost.

If you think this won't work, look at coal fired electricity generators. These plants are allowed to emit so many tons per day of different pollutants. The plants use expensive scrubbers to remove whatever pollutant is being regulated. The scrubbers are sized to keep pollutants within regulated limits on the highest expected demand day. If the expected electrical demand is reduced (mild day, more hydro, wind, etc.) the plants limit the amount of scrubbing so they continue to emit the same tonnage of pollutants per day. Is that what we really want?

Grover

Grover -First of all, your examples of "free-market-style" regulations working in the power industry only function because the power industry hasn't gone and rewritten the laws.  If they had done so, they'd have lax pollution standards and then they'd grudgingly meet them.  Companies are, almost by definition, sociopathic, for exactly the reasons you lay out: shareholders want max profits, and min costs - and if the CEO can get the regs changed, or bribe the regulators with a great job, they'll do it.
So the problem is not regulation, its corruption by the sociopaths.  But corruption is not inevitable.  If you set up the structure properly, corruption will become much more difficult to effect.

  1. Breaking the link between being a regulator, and getting rich after your regulatory career after being lenient on your regulatees during your career.  To do this, we establish a rule - once a regulator, you can never work in the industry you regulated.  Same for managers of defense contracts - they are not allowed to work in the defense manufacturing industry after they are out of government service.  Same for the bureau of land management, the FDA, etc.
  2. Campaigns funded by public finance.  Neutralizing campaign funding (i.e. bribery) by corporations breaks their control over politicians.  Ultimately its cheaper to have the taxpayer pay, since if you don't, the corporations own the government.  At what price actual democracy?  Money allocated to political bribery has an excellent ROI - of course companies do it, its money well spent for them.
  3. Retaining competition in the industry by limiting market size of any one company.  This also reduces TBTF, and political influence.  20 big banks are less likely to effective collude than 2.  And FDIC will happily resolve a small bank - it does a very good job of that.
  4. Simplifying regulation.  Complex rules benefit the big companies, and put smaller companies at a disadvantage.  It also allows more opportunity for industry-written loopholes, since nobody reads the full bills anyway.  Glass-Stegall was 32 pages.  Dodd Frank was 1700.
    Regulation works fine.  Corrupt regulation works badly, and has the very effects you describe.  Its the corruption we must address - its not regulation that is the problem.  One would not advocate "deregulating crime" by making murderers simply subject to a large fine because the police department was bought off by the mob.  One would, instead, focus on cleaning up the police department.
     

I disagree that most price inflation occured before the 2008 crash.  In 2009 and 2010, I saw the prices of pet food go up 50-100% and all packaging for all people foods shrink by 25-33% (while prices remained the same).  And as sugar eventually went up by 50%–and corn went for ethanol–the cost of everything using sugar or fructose shot up.  It's estimated that true inflation has been running about 10% a year and not the 1.5% the government admits to.

Grover, I think your suggestion to tax corporate externalities is entirely sensible. In fact, I believe this is one of the most underrepresented factors in our current predicament that readily comes to mind.
 

If you look at a chart of (US) corporate taxation as a ratio to GDP (as well as several other measures) you’ll see a precipitously steep decline over the last 30 years. You can also see individual taxation going the other direction (rising) at the same time, almost in lock step. What the data shows is burden of taxation (as a ratio) shifting from corporations to individuals.

 

I read a Pew report some time ago that posited if corporations were charged for their externalities that somewhere between 1/3 and ½  of all global profits would be wiped out. Ouch.

 

While the types of externalities that come to mind initially may include pollution and other such things, it does not stop there. It includes push back for infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc. as well as the cost for social reproduction. (education, training, social safety nets etc.)

 

As the global economy gets bigger, and as more businesses enter the competitive space, the slice of pie for available surplus value gets smaller. This can mean declining profit margins even in the best of conditions, and one of the most cost effective ways to counter these tendencies is to externalize as many costs as possible, through lobbyists and social marketing campaigns to demonize proponents of these measures and to infiltrate and thwart government regulatory agencies.

 

 

Corporations have been hugely successful not only in externalizing these costs, but in creating social marketing campaigns demonizing any who might stray so far as to point out that this is occurring. The hue and cry they generate is usually centered around the extravagant costs that capture of these externalities would entail, and this often manifests as propaganda attacks on environmentalists as well as others who might propose regulations to try and stem the tide of abuse that spawns from these attempts.

 

You mention regulation in your post, and I gather you’re proposing that taxation be used to replace regulation. Although novel, I think this notion does not hold up very well. Regulation and taxation as disincentive are very different issues.

 

 

Regarding regulation, you said something in your post that rings true “without too much cost to any party, and always produces satisfactory results.”

 

Unfortunately, this is impossible, and this goes to the crux of the issue. If you adequately disincentivize damaging externalities, you will destroy profit margins and effectively kill capitalism. If there are inadequate potential profits, then corporations will cease to invest, jobs will disappear, and as people have no other way to sustain themselves without exchanging labor power for wages to buy sustenance commodities, we have a problem. A big problem.

 

So the dirty little secret is that this contradiction is no secret, governments are in fact arbiters of dispensing regulations and taxation schedules to (ostensibly)  try and manage a semblance of balance between egregious externalization on the one hand, and capitalism killing taxes and regulations on the other.

 

Our system of governance is supposed to favor the interests of the people in this balance. It does not- for obvious reasons. He who has the gold makes the rules.

 

In a world of declining profits and diminishing investment opportunities, the corporate tendency to externalize more and more costs will rise. At the expense of the rest of us. This will manifest as degradation and eventual destruction of the environment, exhaustion of energy resources, and continued maldistribtuion of profits in the form of accumulated wealth among fewer and fewer people.

 

If you analyze the capitalist means of production in depth, you will find that at its very core it requires exploitation and externalization of costs to function. This reality is masked in the vernacular of the “free market” ideology, e.g. focusing on the means of exchange (market) and denying or ignoring there is some pretty rotten sausage making going on in the production side of capitalism. Said another way, we find in our grocery stores we can buy 19 different kinds of breakfast cereal, 11 kinds of hand soap, and an enormous variety of insignificant product choices, but yet we have sections of the population breathing coal dust 10 miles away from a mine- with no recourse.

 

How’s that for freedom and liberty.

Dave,
Sorry for not responding earlier. I've been away for a few days and just got back. I haven't read this much passion in your words. That is a good thing. I feel like I'm pinging on some core beliefs.

I disagree with your first sentence above. Who regulates the regulators who regulate the regulators? (Read this last question again  S L O W L Y.) Corruption has always been an issue. With regulation, you are going against corporation's prime directive. Isn't it insanity to keep pursuing the same tack and expecting a different result?

[quote=Grover}

As an example of regulation that was an utter failure, I submit the financial debacle that resulted in the 2008 meltdown and subsequent bail-out of the "too big to fail" corporations. If I remember correctly, all of these financial corporations were regulated by at least one regulator. :wink: All of these corporations were able to work enough within the regulatory bounds to avoid detection before it was simply too late. Were it not for the bail-outs, the whole system would have imploded. (Is that too much dramatic hyperbole?)

[/quote]

I'd really like to hear how corruption of the regulators caused the financial meltdown of 2008. Perhaps, there is another explanation??? (Hint: regulation is a political bandage on a perceived problem that eventually results in catastrophic failures.)

Grover

I'm glad it sounds at least a bit sensible. Let's discuss it further and try to work out the contentious portions.

Why do governments tax a person's income? Simply because it is identifiable and the grumbling associated with income tax rarely results in lost elections. If a person approached income taxes as a corporation would, the wear and tear on the body would likely exceed the total income earned. No net profit means no taxes to pay.

I prefer to think of the costs of externalities as fees rather than taxes. Only humans who have the opportunity to vote for or against a tax should be liable for that tax. Corporations are soulless vassals specifically created to accomplish business. They have no vote and therefore should not be subject to taxes.

The buildings of a corporation occupy a footprint, need local services, and produce outputs (some of which aren't pleasant.) It is up to the voters to choose a government that is accountable to their collective wishes. It is up to that elected government to decide how much to charge for services (traffic, water, sewer, etc.) that the corporation consumes and the emitted externalities produced. If the charges are too high, the corporation will leave or go bankrupt - resulting in reduced economic conditions for the humans. If the charges are too low, the corporation will not have an incentive to reduce the externalities.

It is a tight rope that has consequences on either side. There is no free lunch.

I agree. They focus on the weakest link to break the regulatory chains.

Actually, I was trying to be open minded. I wanted an example (from you or Dave) of a regulation that works well and tried to define what "well" meant.

Impossible to find a well functioning regulation? I can't disagree! Actually, I think you understand the conundrum quite well.

As long as we accept it, the expense will be paid by the rest of us. Degradation and exhaustion of resources are a function of population. Profits accumulate to the wealthy until they have it all. At that point, those with nothing have nothing to lose. It has happened before and will likely happen again.

I disagree (with the bold portion.) If exploitation and externalization of costs results in the lowest cost option, why would they pursue other options? They are looking for the least cost alternative to produce the most profit. There isn't anything inherently sinister going on. The people in the market demand those products and the producers are supplying them.

Coal dust is being breathed despite all the regulations that are installed to prevent it. <sarc>Regulation has been such a booming success that we should reward the regulators and step up their reach and responsibilities.</sarc> Will more of the same fix this problem? Shouldn't we investigate and discuss alternatives?  Meanwhile, we are surveilled and controlled by the very government that we elected to represent us. Why am I the only one who thinks this is wrong?

Grover

Grover -Right now, there's not even a penalty for the sort of regulator revolving-door corruption, so there is zero incentive for participants to avoid it.  Our society has said "this is OK" so everyone feels free to do it.  If we passed a regulator anti-corruption law, the 80/20 rule says that the vast majority of people would end up following the rule, seriously reducing the corruption we have.
There will always be a battle between the minority who want to bend or break the rules, and those whose job it is to enforce it.  Because of this, does this mean we should simply give up?  Laws can never prevent actions - laws against murder will never prevent someone seriously set on killing someone.  It does not therefore follow that it is insane to pass and attempt to enforce laws against behavior society finds objectionable.
As for a regulation that worked - Glass-Stegall.  It worked for 70 years.  A 32 page document that split up banking and gambling.  That's the sort of regulation I want.
As for the failure of regulation in 2008 - I totally agree, that's exactly what happened.  An analogy is, there was a wave of mafia execution-style murders in the city, and the systemically corrupt police force looked the other way, because as it turns out, it's quite legal - even expected - for all retired police officers to get well-paid jobs with the Mafia upon retirement.
That's where we are today.  I just want laws passed saying that our police officers will face criminal penalties if they are caught working for the mafia upon retirement.
Clean up the systemic corruption - right now we don't even acknowledge it as corruption - and you solve most of the problem.
As for the "quis custodiet ipsos custodes" problem - that's true with all enforcement efforts everywhere.  You simply do the best you can to eliminate systemic corruption issues, and have several organizations none of which do you assign ultimate power.
Legislative - Executive - Judicial.  Its not perfect, but that's life on earth.
Things go in cycles.  We're in the middle of one of those "heavy corruption" cycles.  We'll have a cleaning, soon enough, and then that cycle will end.  Its just how stuff goes.  Same thing happened during the 30s.
Last point.  Greenspan was certain that banks would never engage in wholesale fraud, because organizationally they would never want to risk their reputations or survival on such activity. Logically this made sense.  And yet, it happened anyway.  In the real world, individuals end up acting on ways that don't benefit the entity they work for, to maximize their own personal gain.  Aligning government revs with corporation expenses sounds great in theory - just like Greenspan's theory about prudent bank behavior - but it will fail because individuals within both organizations will seek to maximize their own gains.  Greenspan's model didn't account for fraud, and neither does yours!
I acknowledge that this battle will go on forever.  Like Jefferson, I say that the price of liberty is eternal vigilence!  He wasn't proposing insanity, and neither am I - we're simply acknowledging the reality of the human condition.
 

Dave,I know this sounds hokey, but it comes from my central core. Around the turn of the century, I started waking up from the trance. I used to believe that government had our (the public's) best interest at heart. I believed that we needed to give "the fighters" more resources so they could right the wrongs. I got involved in the process to elect the "right" folks who could overcome the repressive evil doers.
It never materialized. There was always a reason why and the standard response revolved around needing more power and more influence so they could finally overcome. More power was never enough. NEVER!
I still vote, but feel that action is the second most useless thing that can be done. The most useless action is not voting. Once elected, the pressure to get reelected consumes the office holder. They start out honest and forthright, but need to sell favors to get the money to continue the fight. Where do they get the money? From the industries that they fought to contain. In order to fight the problem, they need to align with the problem's money.
As the Rothchild family a century ago, industry cares not who is in power. They know that money is the blood of politics and they control the money. They corrupt and control the innocent and naïve while marginalizing those who can't be corrupted. It is the least cost alternative to maximizing profits - their holy grail.
It gathered steam after WWII. When Eisenhower exited office, he warned us of the military-industrial complex. We ignored his advice. Other industries saw the M-I success and emulated it (the sincerest form of flattery.) Why else would lobbying be so pervasive?
As long as money and power are in politics, elected leaders will have conflicting motives to resolve. They will talk the talk (to get elected) but walk the walk (to get reelected.) The talk and the walk are in orthogonal directions.
To boil down my philosophy on regulation to its essence, I believe that industry will do whatever it can to minimize costs. They've found that manipulating those in charge of regulation is one of the most effective tools to minimizing costs. They will therefore appear to fight regulation on the surface … while accepting the concept and neutering its effects below the surface.
There is no way we can win as long as we try to beat them into submission. As long as we try to regulate industry, they have huge incentives to minimize the costs. As soon as we think as they do, we can align their forces to accomplish all of our goals.
Isn't that a beautiful solution?
Grover

Grover,
I couldn't agree with you more.

First there is the promoted, positive, altruistic assumption of economic certainty, and then there is the arbitrage of the actual underlying reality; the assumption, and then the indefensible proof otherwise.

An externality can never leave an equation, even if a public relations promotion of simplification, annexation and omission is applied. The key to understanding this can be described by applying thermodynamics to such values. Values for which even Maslow would blush.

The Dominican Republic of the 1970's is a fair example of what I wish to describe - as much as to say there have been many other countries before or since - right upto and including the present day. Below is an extract from the book The Washington Connection, published in 1979. The main author of this particular piece is Edward S. Herman, American economist, media analyst with a speciality in corporate and regulatory issues, as well as political economy and the media. He is Professor Emeritus of Finance at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania:

The Dominican Republic: U.S Model for Third World Development

In his Stages of Economic Growth, Walt W. Rostow describes a development process for Third World countries that come into our orbit: they become gradually like us, with advanced industrial technologies and democratic institutions. The Dominican Republic offers an earthy illustration of the reality of development processes under U.S. auspices. It is an especially apt and relevant case for this reason: with and after the invasion of 1965 the U.S. reasserted effective control over that small country and has thoroughly dominated its politics and economics. Given the absence of any threatening counter forces, we can say that in the Dominican Republic the flow of events surely must have been in conformity with the desires of the U.S. foreign policy leadership.
It will be recalled that the U.S. invaded the Dominican Republic in 1965 to prevent the displacement of the relatively benign fascist regime of Donald Reid Cabral by the Constitutionalist regime of Juan Bosch, who had been overthrown by a military coup in 1963-without eliciting any U.S. intervention to save him and his brief experiment in democratic government. The rationalization by Lyndon Johnson and his spokesmen, alleging an imminent threat of Communism, were convincingly shown by Theodore Draper and others to have been a hypocritical cover for a positive preference for fascism over a less reliable and less controllable democratic reformist government. The invasion of 1965 reestablished a firm U.S. grip on the island. As Bosch put it in June, 1975, "This country is not pro-American, it is United States property." What then have been the main characteristics of the Dominican model of Third World development, as seen in a country under close U.S. surveillance and control?
The first characteristic has been extensive and systematic terror. In the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, and Brazil, three client fascist systems that came into being with explicit U.S. connivance, by a strange coincidence pare-military "death squads" quickly made their appearance and went on a rampage against political dissenters, petty criminals, and sometimes purely arbitrary victims. Amnesty International called special attention to "the numerous political assassinations carried out by Death Squads (such as the notorious La Banda) that have been openly tolerated and supported by the National Police. In 1970 it was alleged that there was one death or 'disappearance' every 34 hours. In July, 1971, Norman Gall alleged that in the post-1965 era, the number of political murders in the Dominican Republic exceeded that of any comparable period under the monstrous Trujillo. Gall noted further that
The Santo Domingo newspaper El Nacional last December. 30 filled a page and a half of newsprint with the details of 186 political murders and thirty disappearances during 1970. The Dominican terror resembles the current wave of political killings in Guatemala…in that the paramilitary death squads are organized by the armed forces and police, which in both cases over the years have been given heavy U.S. material and advisory support.
Gall went on to note that the essential function of political terror in the Dominican Republic has been to control the slum population, "which was the main force that defeated the Dominican military in the 1965 revolution." The Wall Street Journal reported on September 9, 1971 that "the conservative Catholic Church hierarchy has condemned the 'institutionalization' of terror." The Journal also claimed that the opinion was widespread in the Dominican Republic that the United States was behind the paramilitary death squads. Whether or not this specific allegation was true, the Journal observed that "the embassy has done nothing publicly to dissociate itself from the terror. The U.S. continues to provide substantial aid, training, equipment, and arms, to the Dominican police and army."
Since 1971 the rate of killing has slackened, but political assassinations continue and the incarceration and torture of political prisoners still plays a key role in maintaining stability. Amnesty International recently stated that "precise, detailed and consistent information…indicates that practices amounting to serious violations of human rights are still going on: the arbitrary arrest, kidnapping, and assassination of the regime's political opponents; the removal of certain political prisoners to isolation in provincial jails and military forts; deplorable prison conditions, ill-treatment and police brutality inflicted on many detainees…and the continued detention of prisoners once their sentences expire.
The U.S. State Department, on the other hand, in its 1978 Human Rights Report to Congress, finds a "substantial reduction in incidents of military and police repression," a working "constitutional democracy," and "over a dozen political parties…officially recognized and freely active although the 1974 elections were marred by some incidents of military intervention on behalf of the President's reelection." On this last point, the Washington Office of Latin America notes that "the State Department demolishes its own argument. Official recognition means little and political parties are not really free if the military acts against them during an election. Harassment of opposition forces has not ceased, despite Balaguer's claim to have ordered the military to remain neutral. In the fall of 1977, as pre-election campaigning for 1978 was beginning, a local headquarters of the social democratic opposition party PRD was burned to the ground and a PRD official, Samuelo Santan Melo, was murdered. Subsequently, of course, the military intervened more comprehensively to avert Balaguer's defeat in May, 1978, seizing the ballot boxes and arresting or driving underground many leaders of the PRD, before pressure from both the Dominican elite and the Carter administration eventually forced the military and Balaguer to allow a transfer of the presidency to Guzman. A wealthy landowner himself, Guzman would not have been running at all, and would not have been allowed to take office, if he had posed a threat of serious reform. The military and its external sponsor assure that the new PRD operates within a very narrow boundary of policy actions. ~ 56 All the more reason then for the State Department to be pleased with the progress of the Dominican Republic, to be reassured by the promises of its leaders, and to find that this client state deserves the funds still allocated to it for military assistance.
A second characteristic of the Dominican Republic model is widespread venality. Alan Riding wrote in 1975 that "the blatant corruption of military and civilian sectors of the government is spreading bitterness among the urban masses, whose wages have been held down despite high inflation rates since 1960. The military and police in this client state are numerous and well taken care of. According to Riding, one method whereby Balaguer retained control was "by openly allowing senior officials to enrich themselves. With official salaries of $700 a month, for example, most of the country's 37 generals live in huge modern houses, drive limousines, and own cattle ranches."
More recently, Jon Nordheimer wrote that
"Corruption among the generals is almost as legendary as is their ineptitude. In the first place there are about twice as many generals-around 40-as there should be for the size of the military forces. Generals are promoted on the basis of family, friendship and business connections…It is common knowledge that Lieut. Gen. Juan Beauchamps Javier, Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, owns a $300,000 yacht in partnership with a Dominican businessman and that Maj. Gen. Neit Nivar Siejas, the commander of the national police, is part owner of a major Santo Domingo hotel and gambling casino."
A recent report to the Securities and Exchange Commission by Philip Morris showed: (1) a $16,000 payment to a Dominican tax official for a favorable tax ruling; (2) the payment of $ 120,000 to various Dominican legislators for passage of a law that would give Philip Morris a privileged position in the Virginia tobacco line; and (3) monthly payments of $ I ,000 by Philip Morris to Juan Balaguer himself. The president of a presumably independent state taking payoffs from a private foreign business firm would seem rather sensational, but this passed off virtually unnoticed in the United States. Gulf & Western made $ 146,000 in "questionable" payments through foreign subsidiaries in 1976, and although the distribution of those payments was not revealed by the SEC, the usefulness of such a lubricant in the Dominican Republic and G & W's large place there rouses plausible suspicions.
U.S. firms get business done in the Dominican Republic not only by payoffs but by putting important people on their payrolls and by building both personal and financial ties to the local elite. Thus in the mid-1970s the brother of the important Director of Tourism was a vice president of G & W's sugar-producing subsidiary in the Dominican Republic. G & W is also reported to have established "cordial relations" with General of the Police Tadeo Guerrero, who was active in the destruction of the last strong independent union in the sugar business.
Gulf & Western is the largest private landowner and employer in the country, with some 8% of all arable land, mainly in sugar, owner of a large resort complex, and with investments in some 90 Dominican businesses. G & W's annual sales are larger than the GNP of the Dominican Republic, and while it does not by itself control the country, its size, internal connections, and the background support of the external sponsor of Dominican subfascism, give the company a great deal of leverage and might even justify the designation of the Dominican Republic as a "company country. Its rapid expansion within the Dominican Republic since 1967 has been a result, in part, of the great profitability of its sugar operations and an 18% ceiling on profit repatriation.
A potential competitor to Gulf & Western's large seaside resort at La Romana, M. Wayne Fuller, ran into a steady series of obstacles in the early 1970s from the Tourism Office in importing supplies and obtaining tax concessions supposedly available to foreign enterprises. In April, 1975, a government decree was signed expropriating Fuller's beach-land property-for use as a public park-helped along possibly by the fact that the president of another G & W subsidiary was an advisor to the Dominican Republic Park Commission. This decree was rescinded when Fuller mobilized his forces, including various army officers and Balaguer himself. In brief, foreign interests are exceedingly powerful as they curry and buy favor and mobilize their elite cadres, with whom they jointly dominate and loot this small dependency.
A third characteristic of the Dominican model has been a radical sweetening of conditions for foreign business and a strong reliance on foreign investment for national development. As in Greece under the Colonels' regime of 1967-1973, great stress has been placed on tourism and investments related to tourism (resort hotels, airport development). An Investment Incentives Law of 1968 removed any restrictions on foreign ownership, extended generous tax and duty exemptions to new investments, and guaranteed capital and profit repatriation. U.S. companies have swarmed into agriculture, food processing, mining, banking and hotel and resort complexes. In 1969 G & W became manager of a large tax-free zone adjacent to G & W's Cajuiles golf course. One of the many Dominican Republic ads in the New York Times- funded in good part by "contributions" from foreign companies in the country-notes that companies settling within the G & W free zone "are given special duty free import and export privileges. They are granted a 10-year tax-free status." The reporter Michael
Flannery describes the G & W "free zone" in the following language:
"Shotgun-toting customs agents and national police man check points at entrances to the free zone, which is surrounded by a high chain-link fence topped with multiple strands of barbed wire…CNTD [National Confederation of Dominican Workers] and visiting officials of the AFL-CIO charged that the zone had the air of a "modern slave-labor camp." They said the carefully controlled access was designed not only to prevent smuggling, but to thwart efforts to organize the workers into unions that would force an improvement in conditions."
A fourth characteristic of the Dominican Republic model, related to the preceding, is effective government pacification of the labor force, a crucial requirement for an appropriate "climate of investment." As noted above, the systematic police terror since 1965 has returned the large urban proletariat and sub-proletariat to the desired state of passivity, and the countryside has been more easily kept in line by periodic violence and threats. The Dominican Republic advertisement section in the New York Times of January 28, 1973, has a heading entitled "Industrialists Dream of Chances Like These," featuring the low, low wage rates, running between 25 and 50 cents an hour. The ad stresses the role of the law in fixing hours and wages and allowing the free import of foreign technicians. There is no mention of any trade unions, but employers will properly read between the lines that unions have been broken and pacified (with the assistance of George Meany and the AFL-CIO). Of special interest is the regular use of government troops and police to break up independent unions. The agricultural union Sindicato Unido, which operated the fields now owned by G & W was broken by police action in 1966 and 1967, and a number of its leaders, including the union lawyer Guido Gil were arrested and killed by the forces of law and order. Another major foreign enterprise, Falconbridge Nickel, also successfully broke a union with army and police assistance in 1970. A Wall Street Journal report of September 9, 1971 states that "when a union attempted to organize construction workers at a foreign-owned ferronickel mill project last year, Mr. Balaguer sent in the army to help straighten things out. While the soldiers kept order, the contractors fired 32 allegedly leftist leaders…The strike was broken in eight days." Matters had not changed much in the mid-70s. An ad hoc human rights group that visited the Dominican Republic in 1975 reported that "working people have been prevented by nearly every conceivable means from forming and joining trade union organizations." A union organizing effort in the G & W free trade zone in the mid-1970s was broken with the help of the police in arresting, jailing, and deporting labor organizers, and with the use of "troops in full combat gear armed with submachine guns" to break up organizing meetings. Flannery states that:
"Officials of the Dominican labor ministry told organizers that-contrary to the paper guarantees of the republic's laws-workers would not be allowed to form a union in the industrial free zone."
On the matter of labor unions, the 1977 State Department Human Rights Report has the following "information": "Labor unions are permitted to function and numerous labor unions exist including some associated with opposition parties, but under some government controls." That exhausts that topic.
In containing unions and rendering them docile the Dominican elite has had the steadfast support of the top echelons of the AFL-CIO, which has long cooperated closely with the CIA and international business firms in this unsavory operation. Its arm CONATRAL actually helped destroy the pro-labor Bosch regime in 1963 and has steadily supported its totalitarian and anti-labor successors."' Presumably their blind hatred of Communism and radicalism in general has led Meany and his close followers to sell out systematically the interests of labor in the Dominican Republic and in other U. S. satellites. Meany and some other labor bosses actually have a more direct interest in the pacification of labor in the Dominican Republic. Meany, his number two man Lane Kirkland, Alexander Barkan, director of COPE, the AFL-CIO political arm, and Edward J. Carlough, president of the sheet metal workers, all are stockholders in the 15,000 acre Punta Cana resort and plantation in the Dominican Republic. In order to clear the ground for this enterprise designed for the Beautiful People a large numbers of squatters were evicted by the army.
A fifth characteristic of the Dominican model, following naturally from the preceding, is the sharp deterioration in the well-being of the bulk of the population. In serving the interests of a traditional and expatriate elite, the Dominican Republic has been turned into a tourist and industrial paradise, with a "25-cent minimum wage rate and hard-working peaceful labor" [sic: translated, no threat of strikes from any independent unions], and with four tax free zones "filled with manufacturers of brushes, brassieres, batteries, electronic devices, wigs, undergarments, components and consumer goods." The effects of the 1965 counterrevolution and the installation of the Dominican Republic model on income distribution and welfare were summarized by the Wall Street Journal (9 September 1971) as follows:
"The middle and upper classes are better off, as are the lower classes lucky enough to have jobs. But work is scarce; the poor are poorer and more numerous. "Per capita income is about the same as before 1965, but it's less equitably distributed," a foreign economic expert says. He estimates per capita income at $240-three times that of Haiti but half that of Cuba… Most of the 370 young women who work at La Romana earn 30 cents to 40 cents hour last year…Malnutrition is widespread. Says George B. Mathues, director of CARE in the Dominican Republic: "You see kids with swollen bellies all over the country, even here in Santo Domingo." Food production is hampered by semi-feudal land tenure. At last count, less than 1% of the farmers owned 47.5 % of the land, while 82% farmed fewer than 10 acres… Land reform has moved with glacial speed…Most Dominican children don't go beyond the third grade; only one in five reaches the sixth grade. "
G & W acknowledged in 1978 that cane cutter money wages had not kept up with inflation in the years since 1966,'75 and there is other evidence to the same effect, which suggests a probable further absolute fall in the real income of the majority and a further shift toward inequality in income shares. There is also evidence that the nutritional deficit of the Dominican majority is huge. Michael Flannery cites a report which states that in 1972 "a mere 11 percent of Dominicans drink milk, 4 percent eat meat and 2 percent eat eggs. Fish are plentiful in the waters off the island, but draw better prices in other markets. So, few Dominicans include fish in their protein-poor diet."
In the Dominican Republic we see the working out once again of the familiar repression-exploitation-trickle-down model of economic growth. The export-oriented agriculture is, as is common throughout the empire, displacing an already underemployed peasantry and rural work force, increasing the mass of dispossessed and malnourished. The unemployment rate has been extraordinarily high, on the order of 30%-40%.'79 The mass of the population has been entirely excluded from any opportunities for economic advancement, education, or political participation. The large majority as in Brazil, Indonesia, or the Philippines, is a cost to be minimized and a threat to be contained. The process of development observed here is acceptable on the assumption implicit throughout the empire-that only the welfare of the local and expatriate elites need be taken into account. The decline in the welfare of the majority, their exclusion from any power whatsoever, and the cultural degradation of the Dominican Republic, are obviously beside the point. "Stability" has been brought to the country, and from the perspective of U.S. investment opportunities, the Dominican Republic deserves the glowing description of a U.S. Embassy report describing it as a "little Brazil" and "one of the brightest spots in Latin America."

Grover -You want to ignore what I said and go "meta" on me?  I can do that too.  :-)
Looking at things from where we are now, I agree with you, pretty much all of it except for your solution, and your hopelessness about the possibility for change.
Change definitely won't come through the ballot box.  But if you zoom out a bit, look at things from the perspective of the broad sweep of history, you may notice that things move in cycles - there are times when corruption reigns supreme, and times where corrupt overreach results in a crash when there is a window that allows for change.
For instance, how else do you explain the creation of the SEC, Federal Deposit Insurance, Glass-Stegall all in the early 1930s?  They all happened at the same time, they were all in response to the corruption of the 20s and the resulting crash of 1929. 
At some point, we will see a similar period.  It hasn't happened yet.  Without the misery of the 1929 crash, there was no impetus to change.  From my perspective, I'm collecting my laundry list of things I want to fix about the status quo right now.  That way, when TSHTF which it must at some point - greed drives corruption to insane heights that eventually will destroy itself - there will finally be the will to act that motivates real change.
The last time this happened, we created laws that "kept the peace" for 60 years.  I'd say that's pretty good.  Perhaps this time around if we are prepared, we can do even better.  In politics, as in everything, you sometimes just have to wait for the right time to strike your blow.  At the right moment timed properly, even a jab can become a knockout punch.
I think everything is possible.  Just not at this moment in time.
And when it happens, I prefer the direct approach.  Make anti-social activities illegal, and eliminate systemic corruption that society overall finds objectionable.  Nothing dissuades those white collar criminals like a televised perp walk, followed by a 5 year stretch in an orange jumpsuit at Club Fed.

Dave,
When I read your missive of 4/5, I sensed an air of frustration. That's why I went "meta" on you. I opened a window into my thoughts. I wanted to explain that I've fought from the other side and stopped believing that their cause was just or even winnable.

I got to thinking that you are describing a different aspect of regulation than I am. As a blunt analogy, I see regulation as a rape that is legally slowed down and required to be finished with a kiss. The rape still occurred, but the perpetrator had to follow guidelines to mitigate the damage. I'm thinking that you see regulation as setting up laws to prohibit the rape from occurring within certain business enterprises. At least we'll stop rape from occurring in these establishments. (I'm sure we both find rape to be repulsive and it is always dangerous to use imperfect analogies to identify positions.)

As long as "banks" get special treatment from the law, I don't have a problem with legally limiting operations in ALL commercial banks/investment banks as the Glass-Steagall Act did. According to this wikipedia article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall, most of the firewalls were eroded by legislation by the 1960s. By the end of the century, the big banks were already legally avoiding the prohibitions the Act instituted.

Personally, I'd rather give bankers the freedom to declare what they would or wouldn't do with my "deposits" and allow me to choose who to invest with. If they say they're playing craps with my money and I decide to deposit the money, I'm responsible for the share of winnings or losses. If they say they will NOT use my money to play craps … and they do, they can make me whole with their personal funds. If the losses exceed their personal worth, I'd like the law to strip them of all their assets (the first time.) After that, I'd require them to inform future investors/depositors (forever) of their prior convictions, and if they didn't, they'd be incarcerated for life with a roommate named "Bubba." (Actually, I'd prefer that they would be publically hung with a thin wire rope.)

You are correct that the risk of being caught and the consequences of "white collar" crime are minimal compared to the lucrative rewards that can be amassed by violating the laws. That's why we have retired cops joining the mafia. I'm sure there are already laws on the books against anyone joining organized crime. Would another specific law change that?

Should regulators be allowed to waltz out the regulatory agency into the clutches of those they regulated? If the regulations are black and white, those being regulated wouldn't be able to bribe the regulators into looking at the events with a less jaundiced eye. When you say "regulation should be simple" then, it is easy to decide whether or not to allow an action. There is no need to worry about the revolving door. There wouldn't be any advantage.

I agree that social cycles exist. History was only a series of "who, what, and where" until I read the Fourth Turning. I agree with their premise that every 80-100 years, major social upheavals occur. According to my interpretation of their theory, we're currently in the beginning of the 4th turning, but governments and the central banks around the world are trying to hold back the inevitable tide by printing more money. It is doing nothing but delaying the inevitable and making the consequences worse.

As a result, I am hopeless that regulatory change will prevent the cataclysm that will render regulation moot. Once we've hit bottom and start rebuilding, I hope that we put the onus where it belongs. As I said, "I am a fan of transparent contracts and parties adhering to the provisions."

Grover

Grover -I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
To me, regulations are not rape.  I don't feel philosophicaly offended the way you do by regulation.  They are simply laws that companies must follow.  Some regulations are good and protect society, some are bad and effectively only benefit the cartel that had them written.  Regulations are only as powerful as the enforcement behind them, and only as sensible as the authors.  Given your extremely strong sense of moral violation at the mere thought of regulation, it is unlikely that we will have any sort of mutually satisfactory discussion about it.
The story of retired policemen working for the Mob was a metaphor.  I probably wasn't as clear about that as I could have been.  I was using it to describe our current system where regulators leave the revolving door of government to make bucketloads of money in the industry they just finished regulating - an ex post facto bribe, but one that is totally legal.  If you "go along" as a regulator, you'll get a nice quid pro quo job when you're done with your service.  That's one of the two central points of corruption today.  And no, there are no laws against this behavior.  But there should be.  And yes, they would work just fine - my opinion.
The other point of corruption, of course, is politicians who are corrupted in the first instance with corporate campaign money, and in the second instance by working for the industry they did favors for upon their retirement.
Simply holding the principals personally liable for corporate damage is not enough.  Simply threatening to send them to live with Bubba is not enough.  [I also don&#039;t feel that is a reasonable punishment - I&#039;m totally against &quot;actual&quot; rape under any circumstances. &nbsp;Ow, I went there.]  There are people who are happy to take risks with society vastly in excess of their ability to compensate because they estimate the probability of failure much differently than we do - or they figure they can always flee the jurisdiction, they can talk their way out, it won't happen, or in the last instance, they can always negotiate with Bubba.  I've worked with people like that.  Not everyone is an entirely rational actor, and for some reason, some of the people that crawl to the top in our society tend to be…a bit sociopathic.  Or maybe they just sincerely believe in their ability to impose their will over facts on the ground and the laws of probability.  Who can really say?  For these types of people, severity of punishment does not deter.  This is who we need regulations for.
I definitely believe that regulation, on its own, will do nothing.  They have to be written and then enforced after we have eliminated the systemic corruption, or there is absolutely no point.  Dodd-Frank is a sterling example of thoroughly corrupted regulation - a bureaucrat full employment act written by the cartel it seeks to control.
And nothing will eliminate that systemic corruption until it has overreached itself, and caused our next financial disaster.

Dave and Grover, 
I've been enjoying the back and forth on this one. I hate to butt in, but Dave I think you misinterpreted his view on regulation. He wasn't calling regulation rape, he was saying it doesn't act as a stop-measure (using rape as the crime example), but rather as a poor mechanism of slowing guidelines and mitigation.

I'm glad you brought up Dodd-Frank, I've been asking for opinions for awhile, and that is the way I see it as well.

Okay, I'll go away now, and you guys can get back to your interesting conversation. smiley

Thanks